LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-154

RAJKUMAR DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On January 30, 2020
Rajkumar Dewangan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for expunging adverse remarks and strictures made against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in its judgment dated 12-05-2003 passed in Sessions Trial No.166/1999.

(2.) On 02-02-1999, crime in Crime No.21/1999 was registered in Police Station, Baradwar on the allegation of commission of offence of dacoity, punishable under Section 395, 397 of IPC that cash of Rs.13,56,493/-, which was being carried from bank to destination towards distribution of salary to Teachers, was looted. The driver of the vehicle was injured by gun shot injury. Lakhan Lal, Chitrangan, Tosh Kumar and Mohit Ram were accused of commission of offence. Mohit Ram was involved on the allegation that he received the looted cash knowing fully well that it was looted. In the aforesaid trial, accused Lakhan Maina was convicted for commission of offence under Section 394 and 397 of IPC and sentenced 10 years R.I. for each of the offences. Other accused Chitranjan, Tosh Kumar and Mohit Ram were acquitted from all the charges by giving them benefit of doubt. While disposing off the aforesaid criminal case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made various observations commenting upon the conduct of the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was posted and working as Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa. The learned trial Court, taking into consideration the statement of the prosecution witnesses that false evidence was created in respect of seizure of alleged looted cash, which was already recovered from the possession of other persons and further statement of the prosecution witnesses that instead of allowing appropriate seizure proceedings to be drawn from those persons from whom the cash amount was actually recovered, it was directed by the petitioner that the looted and recovered cash be kept in the malkhana and further proceedings to be drawn after return of Investigating Officer, Narendra Mishra from Bihar and thus, investigation was tainted due to such illegal acts. Various observations were recorded regarding conduct and forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police and Secretary (Home) of the State for drawing appropriate proceedings for creating false evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the observations, which have been made by the learned trial Court, while disposing off the criminal case, amount to passing serious strictures against the petitioner, who at that relevant time, was posted as Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while passing strictures against the petitioner, upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court ignored that the petitioner was not a party in the said proceedings nor he appeared as a prosecution witness nor any notice was given to him to explain his conduct before passing strictures against him. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial Court relied upon the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses, whose evidences were not reliable as such and also suffered from material discrepancies, in so far as they stated regarding the role played by the petitioner in the matter of drawing appropriate proceedings towards seizure of allegedly looted cash. He would argue that the petitioner was not the Investigating Officer and the investigation was being carried out by the Sub Inspector-Narendra Mishra. The petitioner did not in any manner interfere with the investigation and he did not even direct any police officer, much less, Investigating Officer or any other witnesses as to how looted and recovered cash is to be dealt with. He would argue that only on the basis of unreliable and shaky statement of the seizure witnesses, without any other documentary evidence of involvement of the petitioner in the investigation, the learned trial Court passed serious strictures that the petitioner was involved in creating false evidence of seizure of looted cash from persons other than those from whose possession, cash was actually recovered. It is further contended that irrespective of merits of the criminal case as to whether the evidence of recovery of cash is reliable or not, he would highlight that the role of the petitioner was not the subject matter of decision of the criminal case, because according to the prosecution, the accused persons had looted cash from Lorry, which was carrying cash from the bank. There is neither any allegation that the petitioner was involved in loot nor the petitioner was involved in the case as Investigating Officer nor there is any material to show that the petitioner was directly monitoring or supervising the investigation or that he himself kept cash, which was brought to the police station and thereafter, before him or on his instructions, proceedings were drawn in respect of looted cash. Therefore, the learned trial Court had no occasion to discuss the conduct of the petitioner as it was not at all necessary nor integrally connected with the case. Therefore, it is argued, the stricture passed against the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable in law. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in the case of State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Naim, 1964 AIR(SC) 703, Manish Dixit and others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 AIR(SC) 93, Prakash Singh Teji vs. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2009 12 SCC 577and Om Prakash Chautala vs. Kanwar Bhan and others, 2014 5 SCC 417.